CHICAGO | Beitler Telecom Tower | 2,000 FT / 610 M | NEVER BUILT

[kayosthery]

Originally Posted by Chi-town

The architect was Bruce Graham and the engineer was Fazlur Khan... and I've been able to tell people that off the top of my head since I was 8 years old. That pairing also produced the John Hancock Center, and one of the two buildings can be found in just about every book of 20th century architecture or engineering.

Don't blame us for your ignorance of design.

I didn't blame anybody for anything, I was stating my opinion that it would be quite an experience to build such a building.

You've given me an architect and an engineer in your response. Those people do not "build" the structure itself. They design and engineer the structure, but they do not connect steel, tie rebar, or pour concrete. What construction company built The Sears Tower? Who was the general contractor and what company, if different from the general contractor, built the structure? This is the difference in the way you think as a "student of architecture" versus the way I think as a construction manager. Lets see how big we can go and what engineering feats we can accomplish. I don't care where this thing gets built, although Wolf Point or somewhere near McCormick Place would balance the skyline a little better.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by kayosthery

I think we can all agree that The Sears Tower is a great building and many people like the way it looks and appreciate its architecture. Does anyone remember who built the thing.... without looking it up on the internet... Didn't think so!

That one is a piece of cake. But I know the book "the sky's the limit: a century of Chicago skyscrapers" by heart. So it is really not fair for me to answer.

oh I see your response above. I don't know who delivered the steel and insterted the windows.

[jcchii]

Tall Tower not growing on me

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by jcchii

Tall Tower not growing on me

Yep, gonna have to agree with you on that one. They must stop it, and possibly force a relocate, and redesign.

[Chi-town]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^ You guys are totally missing his point. Obviously we all know who designed it, what firm he was at. but who BUILT the thing?

I don't really care, frankly.

[kayosthery]

Originally Posted by Chi-town

I don't really care, frankly.

That's an awfully stuck up attitude to have about the people that make all of your doodles and calculations a reality isn't it?

Whether you like the design of the "Tall Tower" aka Taco Bell Tower or not, building it would still be a huge accomplishment.

[Daquan13]

Originally Posted by kayosthery

That's an awfully stuck up attitude to have about the people that make all of your doodles and calculations a reality isn't it?

Whether you like the design of the "Tall Tower" aka Taco Bell Tower or not, building it would still be a huge accomplishment.

Looks like a reconditiuoned or souped up Empire State Buiding.

Or something from Buck Rogers in the 25th Century.

[Chi-town]

Originally Posted by kayosthery

That's an awfully stuck up attitude to have about the people that make all of your doodles and calculations a reality isn't it?

Whether you like the design of the "Tall Tower" aka Taco Bell Tower or not, building it would still be a huge accomplishment.

It would be a huge something, I'll give you that. But it's only a huge accomplishment if it makes a positive impact once complete. If not, it's just a huge fuckup. I still don't know why you'd be proud to be associated with a huge fuckup.

[kayosthery]

Many people here dislike the design of the CN Tower. However, I'm sure the company that built the tower was happy to be a part of the process and has that building under its belt and can chalk it up to experience. They also have first-hand knowledge of what it takes to do such a thing and they will have the upper-hand in the bidding process the next time something of the same size is proposed. That is what I want, the experience of working on something that big, the knowledge gained from it, and the potential to do it again faster, safer, and for less money the next time.

[Chi-town]

Originally Posted by kayosthery

Many people here dislike the design of the CN Tower. However, I'm sure the company that built the tower was happy to be a part of the process and has that building under its belt and can chalk it up to experience. They also have first-hand knowledge of what it takes to do such a thing and they will have the upper-hand in the bidding process the next time something of the same size is proposed. That is what I want, the experience of working on something that big, the knowledge gained from it, and the potential to do it again faster, safer, and for less money the next time.

Good for you. But the resume boosting potential of a project for a particular construction firm or foreman really doesn't concern me, and the importance of it pales in comparison to its aesthetic effect on the city.

You've got the cart before the horse, bud. Structures aren't built to give construction companies practice. Construction companies exist to build worthy structures.

[Adam186]

Alright, that's enough. You both have diffenent agendas and opinions obviously. I think we need to get back on the topic of this tower and not your personal views of construction.

When should we expect a redesign like steely said. You had the inside information on this tower 3 years ago, do you know anything more now?

[Steely Dan]

^ i never said anything about this tower getting redesigned. where did you get that from?

[Adam186]

Oops, my mistake I meant revision. I went back and checked all your posts in this thread and I don't know where I got. I thought I heard somewhere, maybe not from you. Anyway, that's a good thing, because I like it how it is.

[spyguy]

I'm sure there will be some revision, but a complete redesign may not happen. Let's see (that means wait).

[kayosthery]

Originally Posted by Chi-town

Good for you. But the resume boosting potential of a project for a particular construction firm or foreman really doesn't concern me, and the importance of it pales in comparison to its aesthetic effect on the city.

You've got the cart before the horse, bud. Structures aren't built to give construction companies practice. Construction companies exist to build worthy structures.

Construction companies exist because paying customers have structures they cannot build themselves. Like I said earlier, I'll build a concrete block in the middle of Millenium Park if someone pays for it. I may not understand why, but if it gets approved, I guess we'll build it. Beitler wants to build a three legged broadcast pitchfork next to a drill bit and I want to work on it no matter what it looks like.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by kayosthery

Like I said earlier, I'll build a concrete block in the middle of Millenium Park if someone pays for it. I may not understand why, but if it gets approved, I guess we'll build it.

that's fine and dandy kayosthery. just realize that most of us on this message board approach these tall buildings from an architectural/urban planning perspective, so we're simply not going to agree with you on this point.

and on that note, can we now drop this side topic once and for all? please.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Beyond 1000

The reporter Kamin above was comparing the tower to the grace of the Eiffel tower.

What a foolishly irresponsibly muttered statement!

The Eiffel Tower was considered an eyesore back then by the Parisians and was to be dismantled but fortunately those plans did not go through.

He is one of a long line of critics who may deride Caesars Palace in Las Vegas because it lacks the artistry of the Roman Coloseum in Rome.

This tower may go through revisions and time will tell how it is received. The world doesn't just revolve around buildings with multiple floors such as hotels and office towers. Many of them are boring boxes.

The skyline of Chicago won't continue to look the same forever and new ideas come to play. Nothing wrong with a tower in that city. A tower can look a bit different and can be artistic. It is for the general public. Observatories on top of office buildings don't make for the best observatories.

This tower will provide the highest vantage point to view off in Chicago and also a vantage point different than Sears.

Too many people are afraid of change.

^If you look, many of us aren't necessarily against the tower. It may actually be a beautiful building (need more renderings and close-ups). The major complaint is with its location, thats all. It is literally 2 blocks away from another tower of the same height. It just doesn't make sense at all to build them so close together. An attractive skyline needs to have some sort of balance and distribution of its "tallness"

[Beyond 1000]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^If you look, many of us aren't necessarily against the tower. It may actually be a beautiful building (need more renderings and close-ups). The major complaint is with its location, thats all. It is literally 2 blocks away from another tower of the same height. It just doesn't make sense at all to build them so close together. An attractive skyline needs to have some sort of balance and distribution of its "tallness"

Sorry if my post appeared to insinuate you are all against this. I definitely agree with you Urban Polititian in the location of this tower. If this TT is build along with Fordham, then they both will look rather awkward so tall and so close together. It would then seem one is not necessary. I don't live in Chicago so I don't want to come off as an expert in where it should be located. I hear that Meigs Field is being touted around in this forum.

May I ask for my own information, why is this location not a good one for the TT? Is it because it is so close to Fordham or other reasons?

Thanks

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by Beyond 1000

Sorry if my post appeared to insinuate you are all against this. I definitely agree with you Urban Polititian in the location of this tower. If this TT is build along with Fordham, then they both will look rather awkward so tall and so close together. It would then seem one is not necessary. I don't live in Chicago so I don't want to come off as an expert in where it should be located. I hear that Meigs Field is being touted around in this forum.

May I ask for my own information, why is this location not a good one for the TT? Is it because it is so close to Fordham or other reasons?

Thanks

Yes, it is far too close to the Fordham Spire. The nearby location may diminish the fantastic views of the Spire to the south.... which may hurt condo sales. Also, apart from the observation deck on the TT, there will be no views to be had. It seems a waste to have the structure siting on the lakeshore and not take advantage of the views along the whole length of the tower.

[BANKofMANHATTAN]

i wish they'd built the "skyneedle" instead of this other bullshit they've been coming up with. (fordham/antenna)

now that was a building.

these 2 new ones just look goofy to me.