Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel
The owner/developer of the former Spire site, Related Midwest, has very clearly indicated that they intend to create a 'monumental' building for this property (emphasis theirs)...whether that means a 1,001' or a 1,600' tall tower is anyone's guess - we'll just have to wait until the design is released.
Also, your first point doesn't make much sense, because if anything above 900' is cost-prohibitive, it makes more sense to build something taller in Chicago, where construction costs are about 2.5-3x less than Manhattan. Market demand may be higher in Manhattan, perhaps even by that same factor range, but that doesn't mean nothing above 900' ever gets built outside of only the most expensive real estate market in the Western Hemisphere.
|
Your rebuttal is incoherent IMO. Immediately prior you pointed out that the developer was seeking a monumental building (hence the financials are less important). You'll find a similar drive towards monumentality for the two most visible supertalls outside of Manhattan, CTC and Salesforce.
If you think back to supertalls built outside of the two major demands I identified -- market or impulse to monumentality -- there are two outstanding examples of speculative construction: the Empire State Building, which didn't turn a profit until the 1950s (!!), and the World Trade Center, which was developed by PATH and didn't really need to turn a profit to be financially justified. Every other example I can think of -- CTC, Salesforce, Hancock, Sears Tower, 30 HY, and so on -- is either an expression of its main tenants' desire for monumentality or -- as with those condo supertalls -- able to financially justify itself by offering what you or I would generally consider inordinately expensive product.