daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 25th, 2005, 07:39 PM   #41
Dale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,177
Likes (Received): 5505

'It builds up...and the spire will be different.'

Doesn't this suggest the possibility that the tower itself, quite apart from the spire, might be extended ?
Dale no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 25th, 2005, 07:41 PM   #42
BigDan35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 403
Likes (Received): 3

I've seen pictures of the building both with and without the spire. And I honestly think it looks better without the spire on top. Anyways, how many 1,000 footers does Chicago have including this one when its done? 4?
BigDan35 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2005, 07:43 PM   #43
Tom in Chicago
Registered User
 
Tom in Chicago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sick City
Posts: 141
Likes (Received): 4

I say we go to roof heights. This spire business is getting out of hand.

Spire heights. . . roof heights. . . either way it would only amount to a pissing contest. . . what does it matter if Chicago has "X" amount of buildings over a certain height. . . or if it has the tallest building in North America (which it already does so I'm not sure what they're point in saying so is). . . it doesn't matter to the average person on the street who looks up and sees a tall building. . . the only reason they're talking about raising the height to top Sears would be to top Petronas. . . in which case is a good thing just to show everyone how stupid these numbers games are in the first place. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago

Last edited by Tom in Chicago; February 25th, 2005 at 07:55 PM.
Tom in Chicago no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2005, 08:35 PM   #44
SKYMTL
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 110
Likes (Received): 0

^Exactly. I think alot of people would agree that the official building height should be the height of the ROOF. I still refer to the Sears Tower as the world's tallest building. What's stopping someone from constructing a building with a 500m roof height and then popping a 500m "spire" on the top so (in theory) it surpasses the still unconfirmed height of the Burj Dubai? This BS of spire building to claim the WTB title is ludicrious.
SKYMTL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2005, 08:42 PM   #45
Dale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,177
Likes (Received): 5505

So would anyone like to take a stab at my question above ? Doesn't it suggest that Trump is aware of the speciousness of attching a spire to gain the title ?

Trump said: 'It builds up...and the spire will be taller.'
Dale no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2005, 10:24 PM   #46
lazar22b
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 262
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDan35
I've seen pictures of the building both with and without the spire. And I honestly think it looks better without the spire on top. Anyways, how many 1,000 footers does Chicago have including this one when its done? 4?
There are 4 that exist right now, there will be 6 with Trump Tower and Waterview.
lazar22b no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2005, 10:27 PM   #47
lazar22b
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 262
Likes (Received): 0

I think I'm going to end this tallest building race by putting a 2000m spire on my house. It will clearly be the worlds tallest 'building' then.
lazar22b no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 04:34 PM   #48
BigDan35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 403
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazar22b
I think I'm going to end this tallest building race by putting a 2000m spire on my house. It will clearly be the worlds tallest 'building' then.
^ can you imagine seeing a house with a 6,000 foot spire on its roof? Hahaha that would be funny as hell.

So there are four 1,000 footers right now? What are they? And when are the WaterView and Trump towers supposed to be finished? And where in the skyline would they be?
BigDan35 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 06:21 PM   #49
Tom in Chicago
Registered User
 
Tom in Chicago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sick City
Posts: 141
Likes (Received): 4

^Well I shouldn't have to do your homework for you, but here ya go:

Sears Tower - 1,450 ft
Aon Center - 1,136 ft
John Hancock Center - 1,127 ft
AT&T Corporate Center - 1,007 ft (spire)

Trump & Waterview are expected to be completed in 2007/2008. . . they will be somehwere in the middle of the Chicago "skyline". . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
Tom in Chicago no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 06:26 PM   #50
sjambler
Registered User
 
sjambler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 99
Likes (Received): 0

When I first saw this thread in the forum index, all I could see was "Trump Chicago Grows 235 feet" so I thought maybe the building height had increased.
__________________
Coffee Forum
sjambler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 07:00 PM   #51
BigDan35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 403
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom in Chicago
^Well I shouldn't have to do your homework for you, but here ya go:
You didn't have to do my homework for me. Thanks for the information though.
BigDan35 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 09:00 PM   #52
Dale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,177
Likes (Received): 5505

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjambler
When I first saw this thread in the forum index, all I could see was "Trump Chicago Grows 235 feet" so I thought maybe the building height had increased.
That is the implication of Trump's statement: 'It builds up a little...and the spire will be taller.'

But I can't get a Chicagoan to comment on it.
Dale no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 09:38 PM   #53
lazar22b
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 262
Likes (Received): 0

thats because no final plan has been released yet. No one really knows how high the building will go. There's talk of it going higher then the petronas towers, but as of the last official statement, the building is 92 floors and 1,360 feet tall. Any other news so far is just speculation.
lazar22b no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 09:53 PM   #54
Buck
Dublin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 93
Likes (Received): 0

So when is it going to start construction?
Buck no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 10:07 PM   #55
Dale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,177
Likes (Received): 5505

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazar22b
thats because no final plan has been released yet. No one really knows how high the building will go. There's talk of it going higher then the petronas towers, but as of the last official statement, the building is 92 floors and 1,360 feet tall. Any other news so far is just speculation.
Thanks, but I'm simply drawing attention to the apparent implication (apparent in Trump's quote) that the *tower itself* might be extended, to say nothing of the spire.
Dale no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 10:18 PM   #56
Steely Dan
born again cyclist
 
Steely Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: old style city
Posts: 3,381
Likes (Received): 1296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck
So when is it going to start construction?
any day now, the caisson drills are on site and they have already begun drilling caissons for the rebuilding of the wabash viaduct which is coinciding with the work on trump's building. it's only a matter of time before they finish drilling the viaduct caissons and turn their attention to the tower caissons. it could be a week, it could be two, but proper construction will finally start on this long-anticipated project very, very soon.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale
That is the implication of Trump's statement: 'It builds up a little...and the spire will be taller.'

But I can't get a Chicagoan to comment on it.
because none of us have seen the final renderings, dale. victor, our information slueth, said that the final renderings should be released in about 2 months, so until then, it's hard to speculate. maybe the roof height will be increased, maybe not. the only people who would likely know are the folks on the design team, and unfortunately the don't spill their secrets on this forum too often .
__________________
"I wish they'd hurry up and just destroy humanity already........... it's the waiting that I can't stand" - Philip J. Fry

Last edited by sharptent; February 26th, 2005 at 10:39 PM.
Steely Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2005, 10:40 PM   #57
Dale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,177
Likes (Received): 5505

^ Damned design folks !

Don't they realize they're beholden to us ?!
Dale no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2005, 04:34 PM   #58
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 880

ARCHITECTURE

Aspire to greatness

Trump's spire could be a thing of breathtaking beauty or end up a giant, ill-proportioned folly.

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published February 27, 2005

You had to wonder when Donald Trump's Chicago skyscraper would descend into a circus. Last week, it showed signs of doing just that when city officials and Trump sources revealed that The Donald may stretch the spire atop his tower to potentially absurd lengths -- at least 359 feet, or nearly as big as the entire Wrigley Building. That would be tall enough to surpass Sears Tower as the nation's tallest building and even edge the Petronas Twin Towers in Malaysia as the world's second tallest building.

Let's run the numbers, as Mr. "You're Fired" has been known to do.

The roof of Trump's hotel-condominium tower, which will be built on the riverfront site formerly occupied by the seven-story Chicago Sun-Times Building, is supposed to reach 1,125 feet. A couple of weeks ago, after the Tribune revealed that Mayor Richard M. Daley had insisted that Trump retain an ornamental spire atop the tower, Trump's architects at the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill said the spire would rise another 235 feet for a total height of 1,360 feet.

Then, last week, the news hit the front pages that the tower might grow to at least 1,451 feet -- a foot taller than Sears -- or at least 1,484 feet -- a foot taller than Petronas. The "Beat Petronas" option would make the spire at least 359 feet tall, which would be -- gasp! -- nearly as tall as the 398-foot Wrigley. The spires atop Petronas, by comparison, measure a modest 241 feet, though it is difficult to call anything associated with such behemoths "modest."

Beyond the giddy numbers game lies a troubling issue: Is Donald Trump's spire going to be a thing of breathtaking beauty or is it going to be a giant, ill-proportioned folly whose impossible-to-hide agenda is to write The Donald's name in the Guinness Book of Records?

This being Chicago, where the deals are invariably cut before the mock public debate proceeds, we have no idea which outcome we're in for. Trump still refuses to make his drawings public because he doesn't want to alienate the all-powerful mayor, who hasn't signed off on the drawings yet. Planning department officials said last week that City Hall would be "amenable" to a taller spire.

You know we've entered a new realm of the bizarre when Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd), who has let his downtown ward be overrun by block-headed concrete condo high-rises, suddenly begins sounding like the voice of sensible planning. He was bellowing last week that Trump "goes ahead and does anything he wants" without consulting the people in a neighboring high-rise -- or, of course, him.

Forget Trump's aura of celebrity and his "Apprentice" reality TV show. The paramount issue in Trump's Chicago apprenticeship has been, and always will be, the quality of his skyscraper, not its quantity; its aesthetic aspiration, not its yardstick height; its impact on the skyline, not Trump's bottomline. Which begs the question: What makes a good spire?

In the simplest sense, a spire is a decorative exclamation point. Its primary task is to culminate a tall building's journey from the everyday realm of the ground to the sacred realm of the sky. The church spire and its smaller cousin, the pinnacle, did this long before skyscrapers poked their heads into the clouds. The architects of early skyscrapers, among them the Tribune Tower and the Woolworth Building in New York City, clearly borrowed from such precedents to compose their "cathedrals of commerce."

Just how a spire is composed, however, is everything.

There is an enormous difference between the prosaic act of jamming a spike atop a building, which is what you get in such skyline duds as Two Prudential Plaza (a conspicuously under-detailed Chrysler Building wannabe), and the poetic art of making a graceful transition from a base shaped like a square or circle to a sharp-edged point.

The Chrysler's over-the-top top, a series of sunbursts accentuated by triangular windows that rise to a glistening spire, accomplishes this feat with dazzling exuberance. It's the ultimate party hat, the perfect statement for a glamorous city like New York. For all its romance and irrationalism, it stops just short, as The New Yorker's architecture critic, Paul Goldberger, has written, of being laughable.

For Trump and Skidmore's lead architect, Adrian Smith, that is the great risk: That the Trump tower spire will cross the line that separates respectability from laughability and become a gawky, ill-proportioned freak. Yet there is also, truth be told, an opportunity in Trump's decision to aspire to new heights.

Properly handled, a taller spire actually could improve the proportions of a tower that still looks chunky from some angles. And it might etch an iconic silhouette, one that would say "Chicago" with the same grace and power delivered by such knock-out Art Deco towers as the Chicago Board of Trade. The question is how to do that without offering up a bloated piece of postmodern nostalgia.

In the end, Smith's search for style matters much more than Trump's reach for the sky. The "record," in any event, will be a mere consolation prize -- the nation's tallest building, not the world's tallest, because there is no chance of catching the current No. 1, the 1,667-foot Taipei 101 tower in Taiwan. Even the nation's tallest building title might not last long, given that the Freedom Tower at ground zero is supposed to be 1,776 feet tall and is due to be finished in 2009, two years after Trump.

Why should The Donald go for an inconsequential, sure-to-be short-lived record if it would deform his skyscraper and cost him several million dollars extra in the bargain? He's got a skyscraper-size ego, of course. Yet when it comes to overbearing skyline supremacy, Chicago has been there and done that. The issue remains superlative architecture, not a big building.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2005, 06:07 PM   #59
some_stupid_nut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 310
Likes (Received): 3

I hope it doesnt turn out bad. I dont think it will though, hopefully they come to their senses and dont build an eyesore. Trump has has good WTB building designs before, it sucks they he has to try to do it wiht a spire now. Why cant be actually make the building taller?
__________________
I smell bad.
some_stupid_nut no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2005, 07:06 PM   #60
GuitarAce
Turn it WHAT?!
 
GuitarAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clinton, Iowa
Posts: 37
Likes (Received): 0

Off Base

That Tribune - Kamin article is way off base. Did this guy do any research before he started pontificating? Typical critic.

Any article I've read on this quotes Trump as saying he didn't want a spire AT ALL. He didn't think that a spire would look good on his building. The Daley wanted a spire (for whatever reason) and Trump didn't. After Trump saw some architectural workups he warmed up a bit to the idea, but this is not the case of Trump simply seeking a high spire to boost his ego.
GuitarAce no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu