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 December 10th, 2006, 04:55 AM   #141
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

Views are only interesting for so long. Take it from someone who has made the mistake of buying property based on view - after a while you stop looking out the window; but, you have to deal with the fact that your blocks from the nearest train station each and every day.

I guess as I write that I realize the idiocy of assuming anyone who would live in the Spire would use public transportation - but, I guess it's wishful thinking. Transit aside, there's still NOTHING to do out there unless going to Navy Pier is your idea of a good time - and even that would wear thin pretty quickly.
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 10th, 2006, 04:59 AM   #142
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

^ great point. That's why I'm a bit disappointed that retail is no longer a part of the CS project. But perhaps CS will draw more retail development to the area, seeing how we're talking about 1300 units full of deep-pocketed folks
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2006, 05:57 AM   #143
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; June 18th, 2010 at 11:15 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2006, 08:12 AM   #144
Chi_Coruscant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 0

Charlie Trotter should open 3rd restaurant at CS.
Chi_Coruscant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2006, 08:40 AM   #145
Chicago_Skyline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_diamond View Post
Views are only interesting for so long. Take it from someone who has made the mistake of buying property based on view - after a while you stop looking out the window; but, you have to deal with the fact that your blocks from the nearest train station each and every day.

I guess as I write that I realize the idiocy of assuming anyone who would live in the Spire would use public transportation - but, I guess it's wishful thinking. Transit aside, there's still NOTHING to do out there unless going to Navy Pier is your idea of a good time - and even that would wear thin pretty quickly.
Instead saying something like that why don't we having its subway system expand over to near navy pier or best right below CS basement! Now, the part of your so call transportation nightmare has disappear aren't they?
Beside, the "public trasportation system" can always mass product near its location since we are still talking planning stage!

I would say that CS certainly has better location for the buck, why do you think that most of the current high profile residential skyscrapers are setting to near lakeshore location as close as possible and their price has relatively higher in perspective?
Also why would developer want to build way more floors for CS than TT? Is it not because of its lakefront location is "percieveing" more precious in our Chicago residential buyers eye? It is all about supply and demand!
__________________

Zefire liked this post

Last edited by Chicago_Skyline; December 10th, 2006 at 08:47 AM.
Chicago_Skyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2006, 10:44 AM   #146
forumly_chgoman
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 10

^BANNED THANK GOD.....THANK MODS
__________________

Zefire liked this post
forumly_chgoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2006, 07:43 PM   #147
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

^ LOL, not only did I not understand a word he was saying in that last post, but as usual he won't be missed
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2006, 12:57 AM   #148
ricardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 100
Likes (Received): 1

does anyone know anything on the meeting last friday with the city.
ricardo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2006, 06:12 AM   #149
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Instead saying something like that why don't we having its subway system expand over to near navy pier or best right below CS basement! Now, the part of your so call transportation nightmare has disappear aren't they?
Beside, the "public trasportation system" can always mass product near its location since we are still talking planning stage!

I would say that CS certainly has better location for the buck, why do you think that most of the current high profile residential skyscrapers are setting to near lakeshore location as close as possible and their price has relatively higher in perspective?
Also why would developer want to build way more floors for CS than TT? Is it not because of its lakefront location is "percieveing" more precious in our Chicago residential buyers eye? It is all about supply and demand!
Wow, I got none of that. Was it Borat?
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2006, 08:48 AM   #150
Chi649
Registered User
 
Chi649's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 12

I think this building needs a spire, the top just looks incomplete without it, IMO. Therefore, wouldn't it be great if the following happened:
Mayor Daley asks Shelbourne Development to make the building over 2000' because he wants a spire (which knowing the mayor, he probably will want one). 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.
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2006, 10:22 AM   #151
Latoso
C.B.P.
 
Latoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,189
Likes (Received): 3

Maybe the Mayor can get the spire secretly added in the middle of the night without FAA permission. It wouldn't be the first time he's done something like that.
__________________
LATOSO
C.B.P. - Citizens for Better Planning

Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die. - Daniel Burnham
Latoso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2006, 06:23 PM   #152
airmale007
Central Illinoisan
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Decatur,IL and Urbana/Champaign, IL
Posts: 170
Likes (Received): 1

Forgive me if I am totally ignorant, but isn't there a ban on low-flying planes in the downtown area anyway? If so, why would the FAA care how tall they build this thing?
__________________
Whatever.
airmale007 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2006, 07:38 PM   #153
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by airmale007 View Post
Forgive me if I am totally ignorant, but isn't there a ban on low-flying planes in the downtown area anyway? If so, why would the FAA care how tall they build this thing?
Above 2000 ft, you are in federal (not state) airspace.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2006, 10:00 PM   #154
creil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 343
Likes (Received): 1

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.
creil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2006, 10:54 PM   #155
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,504
Likes (Received): 6525

wow, 160 Storeys!!!
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2006, 11:53 PM   #156
eon
2,000+
 
eon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 82
Likes (Received): 0

I agree, the latest renderings (even though they're sort of blurry and small) seem to show a building that, while much more imposing in stature because of its added bulk, seems to have lost a lot of the elegance and inspirational appeal of the original.

The building just *feels* like it should not only taper towards the top, but have some sort of spire or something to take it soaring into the heavens, even if its only decorative.

But hey, even the Sears Tower originally didn't have antennas, and now they make the building, so ya never know.
__________________
eon
eon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2006, 01:04 AM   #157
edsg25
BANNED
 
edsg25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,195
Likes (Received): 105

Here's a question that doesn't deal with logic, but strickly on perception, on comfort level, on what is acceptable to the individual.

Obviously there are plenty of people whose fear of heights would make ten floors up from street level seem unsettling.

I would also suspect threre are many who might find the thought of an 89th floor address in Trump or Waterview would send them into a cold sweat. But truthfully we have enough people in this era of tall buildings who could easily accept such high up condos.

Now I as an indivudal don't know why this is the case, but I think I could comfortably live 83 floors up (it would take some getting used to), but the thought of 115 or 120 or 140, to be frank, scares the shit out of me.

So where is the market for these super high floors. i can't imagine i'm the only one with the fear factor. And to add another dimension: do I really want to have almost an airplane view from residence, so high up I'm probably living with clouds and again high enough up that that below we seems smaller and less detailed...and my condo relates little to the ground far below me.

Am I alone or do others wonder who it will take to live 130 floors above the city?
__________________

Zefire liked this post
edsg25 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2006, 01:30 AM   #158
uberalles
Boca Raton,FL (x-Chicago)
 
uberalles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Boca Raton
Posts: 430
Likes (Received): 0

I felt really safe in the Hancock so I could go 90 stories comfortably. I would be a little concerned about the living in this spire because of the parking garage underneath it. Not because of the obvious 93 WTC attack but because of the large bathtub it sits on. I just don't like have the pressure of 100 million tons of water. It may just pop up out of the ground and float.
Of course this is probably an irrational fear but my imagination won't let it go.
Also the Hancock show the great crossbracing and exudes strength. The tower doesn't show me any strength and looks to be built more for form than any function. They say the outside rails/beams that go up the ridge is for structural support but don't look like it.
There are however plenty of people out there that trust the engineers of this world. How many buildings have collapsed or tipped because of bad engineering?
The Tower of Pisa and the British answer to the Eifle tower are 2 mishaps but both due to bad foundations. Generally people will feel safe. Do you think people that know more about engineering and what goes into designing a building have more fear? Are buildings built to just overcome the stresses they need to take and anything more would be wasting money?
uberalles no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2006, 03:26 AM   #159
jimbojoe45
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 5

I'm glad I'm not the only one who think the new tower is too bulky and has lost that elegance we all loved so much. I love the height but maybe pop on a spire and reduce the twist to get that smooth curve back
jimbojoe45 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2006, 03:48 AM   #160
edsg25
BANNED
 
edsg25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,195
Likes (Received): 105

Quote:
Originally Posted by uberalles View Post
Of course this is probably an irrational fear but my imagination won't let it go.
uberalles, i think that's that point: the irrational fear becomes the reality. And I do't even think it is necesary irrational. Personally i think we're hard wired to feel uncomfortable at the stratospheric heights that would top out this building.
edsg25 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 11:26 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