HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive


    Waterview Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #281  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 9:06 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerGuy37 View Post
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.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #282  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 11:58 AM
ZZ-II's Avatar
ZZ-II ZZ-II is offline
Dubai goes Crazy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Neuburg/Germany
Posts: 268
great pic, thx
     
     
  #283  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2007, 5:59 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,516
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.









__________________
titanic1

Last edited by BVictor1; Apr 9, 2007 at 7:38 PM.
     
     
  #284  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2007, 6:37 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,680
what an amazing excavation this has been. your shots really show it off well victor, great job!
__________________
This one has purple in it. Purple is a fruit.
     
     
  #285  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2007, 6:42 PM
ramvid01 ramvid01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Qnz-NYC
Posts: 57
I guess this means they can start pouring the foundation floor and get the construction really started after all the caisons are visible?
     
     
  #286  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 4:17 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramvid01 View Post
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...
     
     
  #287  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 4:22 AM
McStructures's Avatar
McStructures McStructures is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chitown
Posts: 42
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).
     
     
  #288  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 4:25 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Its nice to see the cassions getting started.
     
     
  #289  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 6:31 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by McStructures View Post
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.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #290  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2007, 12:27 AM
jjk1103 jjk1103 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 878
...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.
     
     
  #291  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2007, 1:49 AM
APPRAISER APPRAISER is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 258
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
     
     
  #292  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2007, 8:53 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjk1103 View Post
...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 View Post
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.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #293  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2007, 1:56 PM
TowerGuy37 TowerGuy37 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 176
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 !
     
     
  #294  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2007, 8:29 PM
APPRAISER APPRAISER is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 258
I was by the site a little bit ago, and it looks like they're pooring more concrete.
     
     
  #295  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2007, 9:11 PM
austin356 austin356 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tuscaloosa
Posts: 2,197
Is this going to be Concrete core with steel floorplates or a completely concrete building?
     
     
  #296  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2007, 12:16 AM
DePaul Bunyan DePaul Bunyan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by austin356 View Post
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.
__________________
"Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads?"

-Hunter S. Thompson (click for full quote)
     
     
  #297  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2007, 12:45 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan View Post
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.

Last edited by honte; Apr 14, 2007 at 12:56 AM.
     
     
  #298  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2007, 1:54 AM
DePaul Bunyan DePaul Bunyan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
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?
__________________
"Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads?"

-Hunter S. Thompson (click for full quote)
     
     
  #299  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2007, 2:32 AM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
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??
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #300  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2007, 8:04 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan View Post
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.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:25 AM.

     

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