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

[r18tdi]

The upper frustum looks a little different (longer?) than the others in this 2017 illustration:


Chicago Architecture Blog

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

The upper frustum looks a little different (longer?) than the others in this 2017 illustration:


Chicago Architecture Blog

Thanks for this! Yes, it's definitely taller than the other

Here I coped and pasted the top two frustums next to the previous two

[Donnie77]

Looks to me like the final frustum is elongated at the top.

How much will the slush buckets delay the topping out if any?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

Thanks for this! Yes, it's definitely taller than the other

Here I coped and pasted the top two frustums next to the previous two

Lol, guys, this diagram literally says exactly how big those sections are. The final setback is at 857'. The top of the building is 1194' meaning the final two frustrums are 337' tall. The first setback is at 593' meaning the middle set of frustrums are only 264' tall.

So not only are the final two frustums taller, they are quite a bit bigger at 73' taller than the lower section. That's almost 28% bigger than the middle section. It will be quite a noticeable design element, probably even from great distances.

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Lol, guys, this diagram literally says exactly how big those sections are. The final setback is at 857'. The top of the building is 1194' meaning the final two frustrums are 337' tall. The first setback is at 593' meaning the middle set of frustrums are only 264' tall.

So not only are the final two frustums taller, they are quite a bit bigger at 73' taller than the lower section. That's almost 28% bigger than the middle section. It will be quite a noticeable design element, probably even from great distances.

I'm a visual learner

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

I'm a visual learner

Me too, that's how I noticed the numbers were right on the diagram! Lol

[PittsburghPA]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

I'm a visual learner

haha! Same, thanks LVDW for preventing me from having to do math haha.

[Zapatan]

Judging from those pictures the real height of this building is either 1,194' or 1,198'

It's a few feet but still a height increase

[jjk113]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Judging from those pictures the real height of this building is either 1,194' or 1,198'

It's a few feet but still a height increase

...1198 ??!! .....will someone give them a broomstick to get the height to 1200 ?!

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

The upper frustum looks a little different (longer?) than the others in this 2017 illustration:


Chicago Architecture Blog

Because of this post I think that someone changed the height of the thread and you shouldn't have....

The previous height was accurate...

You didn't subtract 7' 9" from the 1,198' height.

Just saying.

Remember it was 1,186' before and then it went to 1,191'.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Because of this post I think that someone changed the height of the thread and you shouldn't have....

The previous height was accurate...

You didn't subtract 7' 9" from the 1,198' height.

Just saying.

Remember it was 1,186' before and then it went to 1,191'.

Could've been my mistake. The 7' 9" part is hard to see, what does it refer to?

Splitting hairs in any case I guess

[harryc]

Oct 29

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by harryc

Oct 29

Love this shot Harry. Just sent it to my buddy who fabricated all the ductwork pictured.

[Jibba]

Out of curiosity (directed at those in the industry): Is there a way that finished building heights can be verified in an absolute way (as opposed to statistically etc.)?

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Out of curiosity (directed at those in the industry): Is there a way that finished building heights can be verified in an absolute way (as opposed to statistically etc.)?

The answer is always lasers. I don't know how, but I know lasers must be involved

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by building_guy

The 1198' 5" is the CCD elevation. (Chicago City Datum). It is not the height of the building. The actual height of the building as measured from the ground is 1190' 8"

Right, we usually round up here.

The height is 1,191 because why not

Is the CCD Lake/Sea level?

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Chicago Architecture Blog

Referring back at this image from page 236, it seems the top of the final frustum tapers less -- I assume that would be the parapet screen?

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Referring back at this image from page 236, it seems the top of the final frustum tapers less -- I assume that would be the parapet screen?

Good catch, which I never noticed before. I kind of like the idea of no taper at the top. Gives it more a feel of a crown. The E and W sides of the shortest setback also don’t taper, so this ties the building together nicely.

[nmadsen]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

Good catch, which I never noticed before. I kind of like the idea of no taper at the top. Gives it more a feel of a crown. The E and W sides of the shortest setback also don’t taper, so this ties the building together nicely.

Perhaps that is how a taller crown could be incorporated in a less jarring way that we have experimented with previously.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by bcp

I'd say leave this one to Gang.....those new versions look like an EPT

Agreed