CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

My office has had bids/projections come back at similar levels, often from contractors who do not have a wealth of experience working on complicated facade systems, or because of a few rather pricey specifications that slipped through the cracks.

well, in my 15 years of construction administration, i've never seen preliminary pricing come back 90% over the total projected budget for a project. yes, often there have been particular pieces of a given project that have unexpectedly come back WAY out of line with our cost projections, but never 90% over for the whole enchilada.

then again, i've never worked on anything close to a $900M (or is it $1.7B?) supertall skyscraper, so perhaps that whole world is very different.

[ChiTownWonder]

Where did this 90% over budget come from anyways? I still find that hard to believe

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder

Where did this 90% over budget come from anyways?

pilsenarch. go back and reread the last 20 or so posts in this thread.

he has proven himself to have insider info on this project in the past.

so, while it's not exactly gospel, it's not coming out of nowhere either.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

pilsenarch. go back and reread the last 20 or so posts in this thread.

he has proven himself to have insider info on this project in the past.

so, while it's not exactly gospel, it's not coming out of nowhere either.

I know he has proven himself to have insider info but I also find it hard to believe that the estimate for this design is twice what it cost to build Trump.

[intrepidDesign]

Sorry, I'm too lazy to go back, but I thought the building was 90% funded, not over budget. Am I remembering this incorrectly?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

Sorry, I'm too lazy to go back, but I thought the building was 90% funded, not over budget. Am I remembering this incorrectly?

if you're too lazy to reread the last 22 posts in this thread, than you shall remain in the dark.

the conversation about this project being over-budget starts at post #544.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

pilsenarch. go back and reread the last 20 or so posts in this thread.

he has proven himself to have insider info on this project in the past.

so, while it's not exactly gospel, it's not coming out of nowhere either.

A bit of Gang bashing in the history too...

I appreciate any contribution, but offer a reminder to take things with a grain of salt on these forums...

[Steely Dan]

^ true. no one should ever venture into any webforum without copious amounts of salt grains.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ true. no one should ever venture into any webforum without copious amounts of salt grains.

Yea, don't believe everything you hear, although on one hand I wouldn't be surprised at all (judging from Chicago's history with supertall proposals) if they decided to cut costs and build a well shorter box.

On the other hand, it seems unfathomable that the people behind this would go 90% over budget, you would think they would know what they're doing and to make sure that a design released to the public fit said budget.

I know he has proven himself to have insider info but I also find it hard to believe that the estimate for this design is twice what it cost to build Trump.

It does seem a little odd, they're about the same height but Trump's design is much simpler and less complex. But still, double?

[ChiTownWonder]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It does seem a little odd, they're about the same height but Trump's design is much simpler and less complex. But still, double?

yea kinda hard to believe. 1.7 billion is a lot for a building like this. maybe like 1-1.2 billion?

[pilsenarch]

ok, the exact # turns out to be closer to 1.6 billion, so closer to 80% but still a shocker... maybe it has something to do with a team with very little experience in designing such a structure? again, most of the $ overage is associated with the structure itself, which, of course, is not adding anything to the stability or function of the project... so I would guess the form of the building is going to change drastically, or it is finished with horrible detailing, and/or the form becomes a mere shadow of what it is now, although I'm not sure that wouldn't be better :-)

[ChiTownWonder]

so im thinking same massing and height, but no zig zag sides. god im nervous for a new rendering

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder

so im thinking same massing and height, but no zig zag sides. god im nervous for a new rendering

i think i might have found a new rendering of the redesign.

[wierdaaron]

Maybe the same massing, but instead of steel and glass the whole thing will be brutalist poured concrete with MCF style windows.

[CHI -21c]

They should ditch the zigzag design.

It's so expensive and loud, yet it's not even beautiful or creative. Everyone called it cartoony, an "architectural one-liner," tacky, Dubai/Chinese-esque.

They should keep:
height
scale
straddling N Field Blvd
different hues of glass

Start over with a sophisticated, serious, sharp design.

[pilsenarch]

^ Thank you.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

In your experience when those initial high cost projections come in, how much of the original design/intentions tend to change to compensate for the overages?

It is entirely case by case. It will depend on what came back with the largest overrun, what competing bids are available, whether the client's initial program was simply too much for their budget, whether the client decides to increase their budget... there really is no way to tell without seeing a full breakdown of the cost projections and understanding what is important to the client.

Our office have had project budgets increased by 30% to get the design they prefer constructed, while we have also had clients nit pick every last component of a project to whittle down that last remaining 5% overage.

Never for a billion dollar project however. We typically operate in the $75-400mm range for larger structures.

[Zapatan]

ok, the exact # turns out to be closer to 1.6 billion, so closer to 80% but still a shocker... maybe it has something to do with a team with very little experience in designing such a structure? again, most of the $ overage is associated with the structure itself, which, of course, is not adding anything to the stability or function of the project... so I would guess the form of the building is going to change drastically, or it is finished with horrible detailing, and/or the form becomes a mere shadow of what it is now, although I'm not sure that wouldn't be better :-)

Aren't these people supposed to be professionals? I guess not...

[Ryanrule]

being at the top of your industry rarely correlates with massive amounts of competence.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I know he has proven himself to have insider info but I also find it hard to believe that the estimate for this design is twice what it cost to build Trump.

Trump was constructed 6 years ago, before the housing crisis. I don't know about Chicago, but just within the past year alone construction costs in NYC went up by 25-30%.