CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT - Page 15

BVictor1 · #**281** Posted **Apr 6, 2007, 9:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TowerGuy37

this photo is starting to look redundant! lets see something change here now!

What's changes is that it looks like one can now see the tops of the caissons, and if that's the case it mean they've basically bottomed out.

ZZ-II · #**282** Posted **Apr 6, 2007, 11:58 AM**

great pic, thx

BVictor1 · #**283** Posted **Apr 9, 2007, 5:59 PM**

I stopped by the site yesterday 04/08/07 and snapped a few shots.

On the west side of the core, they've hit bottom. You can see the tops of the caissons. On the east side there's just a few nmore feet of clay to excavate.

Steely Dan · #**284** Posted **Apr 9, 2007, 6:37 PM**

what an amazing excavation this has been. your shots really show it off well victor, great job!

ramvid01 · #**285** Posted **Apr 9, 2007, 6:42 PM**

I guess this means they can start pouring the foundation floor and get the construction really started after all the caisons are visible?

Nowhereman1280 · #**286** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 4:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramvid01

I guess this means they can start pouring the foundation floor and get the construction really started after all the caisons are visible?

I think it looks like they are already working on that on the west side of the site. Look at Bvic's first and last photos, there is what appears to be wood framing and rebar along the entire west side of the site. I looks like they are getting ready to start pouring the west foundation wall of the site...

McStructures · #**287** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 4:22 AM**

I believe that west wall that you see is the slurry wall which is being formed to resist the lateral thrust from undermining the foundation of 221 N Lasalle (neighboring building to the west).

Alliance · #**288** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 4:25 AM**

Its nice to see the cassions getting started.

BVictor1 · #**289** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 6:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McStructures

I believe that west wall that you see is the slurry wall which is being formed to resist the lateral thrust from undermining the foundation of 221 N Lasalle (neighboring building to the west).

It's not a slurry wall. It'll be a regular reinforced concrete wall.

jjk1103 · #**290** Posted **Apr 12, 2007, 12:27 AM**

...with the site so small, it looks like the building to the west is going to completely eliminate any western views for many of the lower floors.

APPRAISER · #**291** Posted **Apr 12, 2007, 1:49 AM**

Hey everyone,

I just have a couple of questions for you pros.
First, how many transfer floors will this building have, and secondly, with how slender the building is, how many floors will they be able to do a month?....estimate.

thanks

BVictor1 · #**292** Posted **Apr 12, 2007, 8:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjk1103

...with the site so small, it looks like the building to the west is going to completely eliminate any western views for many of the lower floors.

Well remember the first 29 floors of Waterview are hotel, and they didn't place any hotel rooms along the western part of the building. By the time you're up that time, the building to the west (LaSalle-Wacker Building) has setbacks itself and residential views will be less impacted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by APPRAISER

Hey everyone,

I just have a couple of questions for you pros.
First, how many transfer floors will this building have, and secondly, with how slender the building is, how many floors will they be able to do a month?....estimate.

thanks

I know that there is a major one at 29 where the setback is. I don't know how fast they will try to go. I'd say at least 1 floor per week once they get going. I will try to find out.

TowerGuy37 · #**293** Posted **Apr 12, 2007, 1:56 PM**

it seems they would most likely do AT least one floor a week given the small floor plates of this building. Look how fast OMP is sprouting up with its angled and curved floors plates. I think they're pouring a floor every four days over from what i've read. This should start to rise pretty quickly !

APPRAISER · #**294** Posted **Apr 13, 2007, 8:29 PM**

I was by the site a little bit ago, and it looks like they're pooring more concrete.

austin356 · #**295** Posted **Apr 13, 2007, 9:11 PM**

Is this going to be Concrete core with steel floorplates or a completely concrete building?

DePaul Bunyan · #**296** Posted **Apr 14, 2007, 12:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by austin356

Is this going to be Concrete core with steel floorplates or a completely concrete building?

I believe it's going to be all concrete. It would be impossible to make a steel building as thin as Waterview.

honte · #**297** Posted **Apr 14, 2007, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

It would be impossible to make a steel building as thin as Waterview.

What makes you think that? A recent proposal for Chicago that was scuttled was 11.5:1 slenderness and all steel. It had composite columns in some places, but otherwise, nothing too unusual related to the height of the structure.

DePaul Bunyan · #**298** Posted **Apr 14, 2007, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

What makes you think that? A recent proposal for Chicago that was scuttled was 11.5:1 slenderness and all steel. It had composite columns in some places, but otherwise, nothing too unusual related to the height of the structure.

I thought that the reason TTC was concrete was because the footprint and slenderness of the building would make steel either very difficult from an engineering point of view or way too expensive. Waterview has almost as many floors and is much more slender than Trump. Isn't the eastern side of Waterview only 30 feet wide or something?

SamInTheLoop · #**299** Posted **Apr 14, 2007, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

What makes you think that? A recent proposal for Chicago that was scuttled was 11.5:1 slenderness and all steel. It had composite columns in some places, but otherwise, nothing too unusual related to the height of the structure.

Ok - sorry, not to get off-topic but you've really picqued my curiosity: what proposal was that??

honte · #**300** Posted **Apr 14, 2007, 8:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

I thought that the reason TTC was concrete was because the footprint and slenderness of the building would make steel either very difficult from an engineering point of view or way too expensive. Waterview has almost as many floors and is much more slender than Trump. Isn't the eastern side of Waterview only 30 feet wide or something?

I've heard people say that about Trump, but frankly, I don't understand that argument. In fact, I understand that Trump was also supposed to be steel, but they switched simply because the price of steel went up beyond their projections. However, I am certainly not an authority on high-rise engineering, so any corrections are welcome.

There is usually an equation that you have to balance between the price of steel and the added labor / time required to erect a concrete frame.

If Waterview were to be a steel frame, it almost certainly still would have had a composite deck and concrete core for lateral stability, just as the current proposal has. But I think it would have been perfectly possible in steel. There may have been bracing in undesirable places, however, or large members associated with moment frames.

Sam, the proposal I am referring to was the 80-story that was planned on Monroe just off Michigan.