CHICAGO | Chicago Spire | 610 M / 2,000 FT | 150 FLOORS | NEVER BUILT - Page 91

wrab · #**1801** Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 11:19 PM**

I was at the CAF's Model City exhibit today just in time to see a surprise appearance by the Spire :

Ordo_ · #**1802** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 12:12 AM**

lol.

...and I find it interesting that the Spire is included and Waterview isn't.

wrab · #**1803** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 12:49 AM**

^ The Spire wouldn't normally be in the Model City either - I asked & was told that it occasionally gets trotted out on request for special events. Looked like some kind of educational youth tour going on today.

Waterview is in the much smaller city model in the adjacent CitySpace gallery, whereas the Spire is not.

Ryan81 · #**1804** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 6:36 PM**

Wrabbit,

Do you have pictures from different angles that you care to post?

steveve · #**1805** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 8:59 PM**

WOW!... that's one awesome model of the city!

***Aqua looks puny

Nowhereman1280 · #**1806** Posted **Nov 24, 2009, 4:33 AM**

Yeah that model shows how out of scale most of the renderings have been. When its actually to scale, it dwarfs everything in the city. Pretty cool. If the Spire really does have any life left in it at this point it just may get built seeing as how the housing market is beginning to thaw.

wrab · #**1807** Posted **Nov 24, 2009, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan81

Wrabbit,

Do you have pictures from different angles that you care to post?

Yes, but they're in Chicago and I'm now with the folks for Thanksgiving. I'll try to post some when I get back on Sunday.

Ardvark · #**1808** Posted **Nov 26, 2009, 12:23 PM**

I'm spotting some details on that Spire model that I can't remember having seen before in the renders. I'm referring to the horizontal "bands" to be precise, every few floors.

Are those actually planned for the building itself?
I'm inclined to think the model would be correct (based on the impressive level-of-detail seen in the Aqua model in the background).

Apex · #**1809** Posted **Nov 26, 2009, 12:50 PM**

*sigh* boy it hurts to see a beautiful building like this flounder in holding for so long. i'm afraid this one just ain't realistic. it represents all the excess of the real estate market before the crash. chicago's got a bad reputation with ambitious projects like this ... miglin-beitler, 7sd, now this. i know they were a lot different but still, i think the point is sears tower is about as tall as chicago can reasonably support. obviously i'd love to be proven wrong, but at this point it's good as cancelled to me.

pattali · #**1810** Posted **Nov 26, 2009, 1:41 PM**

A question :
Why every building in Chicago get

why every building in NYC get

any answer ?

bomberguy · #**1811** Posted **Nov 26, 2009, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattali

A question :
Why every building in Chicago get

why every building in NYC get

any answer ?

Because the Chicago buildings/construction are "on hold"

Chicago_Forever · #**1812** Posted **Nov 26, 2009, 4:56 PM**

Try again. NYC actually has about the same amount if not more buildings on hold than Chicago does. As for the original question, I'm not sure of the answer but have also ask myself the same question. Anyway, there are only 3 buildings in Chicago with a

Nowhereman1280 · #**1813** Posted **Nov 26, 2009, 5:05 PM**

Its because the on-hold buildings get a

while all other Chicago threads get a

the

began as a way to make it easier to visually pick out Chicago's threads from the others and then the NY forumers picked up on it and started using

to denote their threads.

meh_cd · #**1814** Posted **Nov 26, 2009, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ardvark

I'm spotting some details on that Spire model that I can't remember having seen before in the renders. I'm referring to the horizontal "bands" to be precise, every few floors.

Are those actually planned for the building itself?
I'm inclined to think the model would be correct (based on the impressive level-of-detail seen in the Aqua model in the background).

A few of the later renderings showed the bands. I think they are mechanical floors and they do a nice job of breaking the tower up visually. Not too much, but just enough.

I'm referring to the bands with the grooves. Not all of the bands.

wrab · #**1815** Posted **Nov 26, 2009, 6:04 PM**

I'm guessing that the Spire model was printed out in several sections and that several of the more prominent "bands" are actually segment joints where the model sections were joined - most Stereolithogrphy machines have a max output of only about two feet, which is a shorter height than the Spire model.

Untitled · #**1816** Posted **Nov 27, 2009, 9:10 AM**

Just read through six months of comments (I haven't visited since May) and it's kinda stunning to see that there's been no news of significance.

If y'all can tolerate my application of rough logic to the scant evidence available, I see two possibilities:

1) Shelbourne still thinks this building will be built and is believing that if only something would break their way (and for a while everything has gone against them), they'll be back on track. In the meantime, there's not much reason to say much of anything.

2) Shelbourne thinks this project is dead but fears that news of its demise would create a cascade of negative p.r., thus imperiling their business as a whole. Thus they want to keep it on life support long enough to shore up their business and/or reduce the negative impact of this project's death via the passage of time.

While many of the pieces of negative news, in and of themselves, can easily be rationalized as symptoms of a project under duress but still viable, taken as a whole, the series of liens and lawsuits tends to favor the second possibility.

There is a third option, of course: That Shelbourne is operating under the second scenario but holding out hope for the first. There is insufficient evidence to say which of the three we're looking at.

Cro Burnham · #**1817** Posted **Nov 27, 2009, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untitled

Just read through six months of comments (I haven't visited since May) and it's kinda stunning to see that there's been no news of significance.
. . . .

2) Shelbourne thinks this project is dead but fears that news of its demise would create a cascade of negative p.r., thus imperiling their business as a whole. Thus they want to keep it on life support long enough to shore up their business and/or reduce the negative impact of this project's death via the passage of time.

I think Shelbourne knows that the original concept, a figment of an artificially cash-flush, once- or twice-a-century debt-driven boom, is as dead as the first pilgrim to taste turkey.

Eventually, however, the site will be developed as something different from the original vision. The site with entitlements, plans, geotechnical stuff, etc., is valuable. But at this stage in the cycle, it is still worth way less than the money that has been invested. I imagine he is playing a waiting game assuming that now is the market trough and that the longer he can hold out, the more likely it will be that he may be able to sell the site, plans, etc., at an amount closer to what was originally invested and maybe even be in a better position to collect on development fees, etc.

I'd assume lenders might feel the same now too: why dump the property in the worst real estate market in 80 years when you could cut your losses significantly by waiting a few more years. And US government policy seems to support the banks in not having to mark their mortgage holdings to market on their balance sheets.

In other words, the market is so bad, it could only get better - everyone involved gains by waiting things out and jockeying for a better position once some of the value starts returning in a few years.

I think that hole, and, unfortunately, Shelbourne, will be there for many years to come.

spyguy · #**1818** Posted **Nov 30, 2009, 4:33 AM**

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,1953419.story

Spire developer Garrett Kelleher to meet with leaders of AFL-CIO pension investment trusts
By Mary Ellen Podmolik
November 30, 2009

Chicago Spire developer Garrett Kelleher is scheduled to meet Monday with leaders of AFL-CIO pension investment trusts in what is being characterized as "advanced" talks regarding the planned skyscraper's funding.

Under discussion is a potential $170 million land loan that would retire Shelbourne Development Group Inc.'s loan from Anglo Irish Bank, pay off liens and restart work on a project dormant for more than a year.

..."When I was sitting in Copenhagen and things went south, this moved to the No. 1 slot. We're way past the look-see stage. We're in the commitment stage now.

...Kelleher and Spire representatives have been making the rounds of local union halls in the past few weeks, trying to generate interest from the locals' pension funds as well, according to a source close to the discussions. Last week, one unspecified local union committed $40 million to the project, the Shelbourne spokeswoman confirmed.

killaviews · #**1819** Posted **Nov 30, 2009, 4:58 AM**

^^^ "Last week, one unspecified local union committed $40 million to the project, the Shelbourne spokeswoman confirmed."

That line has been cut from the story. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be released, or the Trib couldn't confirm it.

But positive news.

Kngkyle · #**1820** Posted **Nov 30, 2009, 6:55 AM**

Just when we were all thinking that losing the Olympic bid was bad for the Spire, it turns out the opposite might hold true. The AFL-CIO committed to $500 million for the Olympic Village.

This line here got me most excited:

Quote:

An announcement of a significant financial commitment is expected soon.

Here is that promotional video for the spire; it is sure to reignite one's excitement.

• Video Link