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 May 11th, 2007, 04:24 AM   #1341
Jamandell (d69)
Skyscraperholic
 
Jamandell (d69)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 2,829
Likes (Received): 229

Congratulations Chicago!

I really look forward to seeing this rise! Should be a fantastic race to the top between this and the Freedom Tower in New York!
Jamandell (d69) no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 11th, 2007, 04:37 AM   #1342
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,745
Likes (Received): 10124

what great news! so this will worlds tallest block of flats? Dubais pentonium misses out. just a question. is 2000ft the height limit for structures in USA?

http://www.thechicagospire.com/
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 04:40 AM   #1343
Adrian Smith fan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 505
Likes (Received): 18

yes 2000ft the height limit for structures in USA
__________________

Zefire liked this post
Adrian Smith fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 04:43 AM   #1344
Hanshin-Tigress
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 和歌山市(Wakayama);Orlando
Posts: 1,744
Likes (Received): 110

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian Smith fan View Post
yes 2000ft the height limit for structures in USA
????What are you talking about? I dont think there is a height limit for the whole country.
__________________

Zefire liked this post
Hanshin-Tigress no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 04:44 AM   #1345
Adrian Smith fan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 505
Likes (Received): 18

yes it is
__________________

Zefire liked this post
Adrian Smith fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 04:51 AM   #1346
Kngkyle
Registered User
 
Kngkyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Orlando
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki-chan View Post
????What are you talking about? I dont think there is a height limit for the whole country.
In order to build past 2,000 feet there has to be a good reason for it. Or else the FAA won't approve of it. Every building over 500 feet already needs FAA approval, but going over 2,000 feet needs to take it a step further I suppose. There has already been a big long discussion about this earlier in this thread or in another thread.
Kngkyle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:17 AM   #1347
great184
visionary
 
great184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Miami-Manila-Bohol
Posts: 1,722
Likes (Received): 281

This approval means that by 2010 Chicago will have 6 supertalls!!
__________________
Arguably, one of the best 3d cities in SSC - South Sea Central

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1536278
great184 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:23 AM   #1348
feworkr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 45
Likes (Received): 0

I'm with Geoff. Do the math. Right now $1.5 billion divided by 1200 condos is $1.25 mil. each. As of Feb. - they sold 7 of the condos at 50 E. chestnut -(out of 34) granted they are going for around $3 mil. each - but the point is - - that's the 'break -even' point for Kelleher. The construction costs are sure to increase - -and I don't think he's doing this to 'break even'. What I fear will happen (if ANY contractors are stupid enough to bid on it, and if any GC's do bid on it the price will skyrocket) is that it'll get 30 stories in the air and Kelleher will say 'oops, out of money' now the city will have to bail it out or have a 1/3 finished blemish on its lakefront. This building is a huge ***** residing in fantasy land which can't physically be built in it's current form.
feworkr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:33 AM   #1349
Hollie Maea
Registered User
 
Hollie Maea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,403
Likes (Received): 25

Richard, 2000 feet is not a solid limit, but it's an almost insurmountable bureaucratic hurdle to go past. No one has ever tried to get the special clearance necessary from the FAA to go past 2000 (there are 3 or 4 radio masts that are slightly higher than 2000 feet, but they were built before the regulation was created, and were "grandfathered" in). I can't imagine a scenario in which the FAA would grant permission to go past 2000 feet, so for all practical intents it is the height limit.

Edit: here is the FAA's statement, taken from FCC's website. The FCC has an identical statement, so if the top is an antenna, then the developers have to convince both the FAA and the FCC.

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. See 14 CFR § 77.17(c).

Last edited by Hollie Maea; May 11th, 2007 at 05:38 AM.
Hollie Maea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:35 AM   #1350
pennster
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 391
Likes (Received): 7

Well hopefully now that the FAA will see that it is actually feasible and very possible to build a 2000-foot tall building, there may be a change in policy in the future. If it's just an FAA regulation, it wouldn't need legislation.
pennster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:41 AM   #1351
pennster
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 391
Likes (Received): 7

If Kelleher did that, he would lose ALL credibility in the development world, and it is unlikely he would be given money to build anything again. For his own sake, he probably has everything together. There's already been enough discussion about how development in Europe where he has built successfully before is different than in the States in that in Europe condos don't need to be pre-sold in order for a project to move forward. I'm sure Kelleher has all the financing he needs and these condos will be selling for far more than $1.5million each. Selling condos nearer to the top for upwards of $10 or 15 million seems appropriate--and you know people will pay it. Luckily these types of residential projects bypass regional or national real estate trends simply because of the fact that they are so expensive that it is out of range of the people that have to worry about real estate trends when buying a home.
pennster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:43 AM   #1352
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

From my understanding, they are mostly concerned with 2000'+ towers in rural settings, not in a city.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:44 AM   #1353
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by great184 View Post
This approval means that by 2010 Chicago will have 6 supertalls!!
7 actually - most people forget about AT&T.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:47 AM   #1354
Hollie Maea
Registered User
 
Hollie Maea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,403
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
From my understanding, they are mostly concerned with 2000'+ towers in rural settings, not in a city.
That's not true. The FAA has a "Rebuttable statement" against ANY structure ANYWHERE above 2000 feet. What that means is that they don't have to prove that the structure is a danger (or even just an "inefficient usage of airspace"), but the developer has to prove to them that it is not.
Hollie Maea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:47 AM   #1355
pennster
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 391
Likes (Received): 7

"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. See 14 CFR § 77.17(c)."

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/dtv/lighting.html
pennster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:58 AM   #1356
MDguy
Registered User
 
MDguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,671

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
7 actually - most people forget about AT&T.
well, to the spire, Two Prudential Plaza is also a supertall (at least that's what the diagram of chicago at ssp says, 303 meters to spire). So 8 supertalls!
MDguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 05:59 AM   #1357
Frumie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 717
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by pennster View Post
If Kelleher did that, he would lose ALL credibility in the development world, and it is unlikely he would be given money to build anything again. For his own sake, he probably has everything together. There's already been enough discussion about how development in Europe where he has built successfully before is different than in the States in that in Europe condos don't need to be pre-sold in order for a project to move forward. I'm sure Kelleher has all the financing he needs and these condos will be selling for far more than $1.5million each. Selling condos nearer to the top for upwards of $10 or 15 million seems appropriate--and you know people will pay it. Luckily these types of residential projects bypass regional or national real estate trends simply because of the fact that they are so expensive that it is out of range of the people that have to worry about real estate trends when buying a home.
Perhaps we 21st century Chicagoans will need adopt a radically different mindset if we are to truly accept and appreciate this project. Clearly everything said and done by the designer, the developer, the marketer, and even the financer bespeaks a global perspective, they are reaching well beyond the shores of Lake Michigan. If and when completed, this project should draw to Chicago a global elite whose vision and wealth will ratchet our city up a notch or two. Personally I'm going to lean back and watch the show.
__________________
You truly want peace? Be righteous.
Frumie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 06:12 AM   #1358
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frumie View Post
Perhaps we 21st century Chicagoans will need adopt a radically different mindset if we are to truly accept and appreciate this project. Clearly everything said and done by the designer, the developer, the marketer, and even the financer bespeaks a global perspective, they are reaching well beyond the shores of Lake Michigan. If and when completed, this project should draw to Chicago a global elite whose vision and wealth will ratchet our city up a notch or two. Personally I'm going to lean back and watch the show.
^ Now that's what I call a glass half full

Let just hope
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 07:14 AM   #1359
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by feworkr View Post
I'm with Geoff. Do the math. Right now $1.5 billion divided by 1200 condos is $1.25 mil. each. As of Feb. - they sold 7 of the condos at 50 E. chestnut -(out of 34) granted they are going for around $3 mil. each - but the point is - - that's the 'break -even' point for Kelleher. The construction costs are sure to increase - -and I don't think he's doing this to 'break even'. What I fear will happen (if ANY contractors are stupid enough to bid on it, and if any GC's do bid on it the price will skyrocket) is that it'll get 30 stories in the air and Kelleher will say 'oops, out of money' now the city will have to bail it out or have a 1/3 finished blemish on its lakefront. This building is a huge ***** residing in fantasy land which can't physically be built in it's current form.
I do the math and Kelleher will walk out a rich man. 2.4 million square feet of space at $1,000 per SF means he should net $2.4B. If Trump can sell his penthouse for $28M, Kelleher should have no problem selling many of his for that price (especially since about 1/3 of the units may be looking down on Trump's $28M penthouse). I bet the cheapest unit will go for more than $1.25M.

Three reasons Kelleher will succeed:
- Global market - While Trump is a household name in the US, Calatrava, Kelleher, and the marketing of this project will be global. Chicago prices, even $1,000/SF is way under priced when you look at comparable real estate globally.
- No bureaucratic B.S. - Kelleher is very aggressive and it looks like he will go ahead and build this, much with his own money which should keep loans and general costs down. I have a feeling this building will go up fast and Kelleher will save lots of money on management fees, interest, taxes, etc.
- Sales strategy - Kelleher will just go ahead and build this without the "pre-construction discount" that you see with many new developments. Even Trump had a family and friend discount that was greatly reduced (although we all know how that sleeze ball backed out of many of the contracts).
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 07:49 AM   #1360
WesternburbsTony23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 141
Likes (Received): 0

Okay I wanna hear odds!!!! I say 80/20 to be built
WesternburbsTony23 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
chicago, santiago calatrava, spire, tallest, tower

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 11:52 PM.


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