SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Cancelled Project Threads Archive (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=654)
-   -   CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=119993)

Steely Dan Nov 14, 2006 12:58 AM

CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT
 
here's a link to the last page of the old thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=41986&page=81

Pandemonious Nov 14, 2006 1:16 AM

Well, I guess I will need to change my diagram now. Any idea at all where the extra height is added in?

Even from the renderings it is hard to get the real impact this baby will have on the skyline.. especially from the west.. will be huge.

BVictor1 Nov 14, 2006 6:57 PM

A few more shots from Sunday 11/12

View of the site and the installation of the tower crane from the 35th floor of the LaSalle-Wacker Building - 2006-11-12
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/t.../11/499549.jpg

Installing components to the tower crane as seen from the LaSalle-Wacker Building - 2006-11-12
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/t.../11/499553.jpg

View from the northeast into the core area - 2006-11-12
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/t.../11/499545.jpg

dubai 1 Nov 14, 2006 7:25 PM

NICE Updates, when does the additional excavation start?

left of center Nov 14, 2006 7:27 PM

^ im still in awe at the tiny size of that plot of land. they are building a supertall on a quarter of a block! can that tower crane even fully rotate at the height its at? insane!

BVictor1 Nov 14, 2006 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center
^ im still in awe at the tiny size of that plot of land. they are building a supertall on a quarter of a block! can that tower crane even fully rotate at the height its at? insane!

At it's current height. I don't believe that it can fully rotate unless the boom is on an angle, and I can't remember if it is.

Also Steely, I hate to ask, but until I see the blueprints again, I'd like the height on the thread to remain 1,047'.

The other person that I contacted at Teng said the height hadn't changed, so until I get a visual confirmation by looking at the prints, I will be conservative and say it's better to keep the old 1,047' height.

Didn't mean to jump the gun or anything, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Mr Roboto Nov 14, 2006 8:31 PM

I cant wait till this thing starts going vertical, seems like they've been in that hole forever. Any chance it could catch up to Trump at some point, seeing as how its got a lot less square footage?

kalmia Nov 14, 2006 8:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center
^ im still in awe at the tiny size of that plot of land. they are building a supertall on a quarter of a block! can that tower crane even fully rotate at the height its at? insane!


Does anyone here know the actual dimentions of the lot size? It doesn't look like much more than 150 feet on the east side.

BVictor1 Nov 14, 2006 9:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto
I cant wait till this thing starts going vertical, seems like they've been in that hole forever. Any chance it could catch up to Trump at some point, seeing as how its got a lot less square footage?

It won't be catching Trump.

Overall footprint: ~23,000sf
Core footprint: ~4,100sf

Structure won't be to Upper Wacker until about May 07

kalmia Nov 14, 2006 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1
It won't be catching Trump.

Overall footprint: ~23,000sf
Core footprint: ~4,100sf

Structure won't be to Upper Wacker until about May 07


I guess the lot is about the size of or smaller than a typical suburban McMansion lot.

There are many suburbs that wouldn't allow even a single family house to be built on a lot that size.

BVictor1 Nov 14, 2006 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalmia
I guess the lot is about the size of or smaller than a typical suburban McMansion lot.

There are many suburbs that wouldn't allow even a single family house to be built on a lot that size.

Welcome to Chicago, where we try to utilize our assets and not waste them...:)

Nowhereman1280 Nov 14, 2006 11:22 PM

PSH! Tell me about it! I grew up in the county just north of Milwaukee, one of the ten richest by per capita income in the US, where the average lot size had to be at least 4 or 5 acres!

X-fib Nov 15, 2006 2:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280
PSH! Tell me about it! I grew up in the county just north of Milwaukee, one of the ten richest by per capita income in the US, where the average lot size had to be at least 4 or 5 acres!


Laid on its side, can you imagine, with parking lots, how much land a supertall like Waterview would concern in the burbs? Land use and visual impact are strong arguements for building vertical. Oh, some areas in Oconto County, WI require 10 plus acres for per house (much to the shagrin of developers!) :rolleyes:

Alliance Nov 15, 2006 7:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1
Welcome to Chicago, where we try to utilize our assets and not waste them...:)

:notacrook:

BVictor1 Nov 17, 2006 4:34 PM

Well, and questions currently about the height of this buildings now have been put to rest as far as I am concerned. Waterview Tower went back before the plan commission for a small increase in the FAR. The height of the building hasn't changed. They are planning to add 2 more hotel rooms per floor. After the meeting I asked about the views from the rooms, because that area faces the Transportation Building and The LaSalle Wacker. The reply was that Shangri;La officials figured if you can have a hotel room facing a blank wall in New York with no problems, why not here too? Or something to that affect. Afterwards, I became the proud owner the the presentation boards:) , which included a floor overview and nice rendering as you can see. They just gave me the boards, and I certainly appreciate that. Fuck, who are you kidding? I'm going to get these bitches framed when I get a chance.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...1/P1050788.jpg

Yes, that dude from the Union was there to oppose the project. Commissioner Natarus asked him if he realized that the building was already under-cxonstruction and he said yes. It was pretty much a non-issue.

Here's the floor overview for Waterview Tower. Those of you who bought units can now find out how high you are actually living.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...1/P1050781.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...1/P1050782.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...1/P1050783.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...1/P1050784.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...1/P1050785.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...1/P1050786.jpg

I'm also sure that someone is going to comment that the diagram shows 88 floors. Well, if you count the mezzanine level 1M and the roof, then you get 90.

-GR2NY- Nov 17, 2006 4:37 PM

This one I am truly excited about. It reminds me of myself. Tall, thin, and well.... light colored.

WonderlandPark Nov 17, 2006 4:51 PM

So, according to the elevations above, roof is 1012ft and screen wall is 1035?

Wheelingman04 Nov 18, 2006 7:38 AM

What an exciting project.:cheers:

jcchii Nov 18, 2006 4:25 PM

this is the kind we like to see. thin and tall.
when construction hits that upper thin section it should really shoot up

budman Nov 18, 2006 6:55 PM

BVic, left you a pm.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.