Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT
I've heard that many times, but I've often wondered why. With a single tower you'd only have a single slab and the working crews would be focused on the single project rising - instead of two separate foundations and two individual buildings with all the additional things that come with having a new, second building. Intuitively it "feels" like a single giant tower would cost more per sqft but I simply don't understand the mechanisms responsible for that.
|
Apparently engineering costs skyrocket just that much after a certain height (300 or so meters). Smaller buildings are much easier to engineer to the point that even with just two of them, it's still more economical.
Quote:
|
Honestly they should look at another developer, I don’t get why this city is the birth place of the skyscraper but yet we ain’t cracking the top 5 or 10. They’re putting two buildings that’s 875 and 765ft , why just have one mega building 2,100ft in the air. It will sell. You’re pretty much getting the whole view of Chicago. And the building location is in the mouth of the Chicago river
|
Chicago still cracks the top 5 or 10 globally when it comes to most skyscraper superlatives, just not individual buildings.
I'd be happy with a 1600 footer though, 2100 seems unnecessary.
Thompson Center anyone?
Threaded Mode