CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS

[vexxed82]

I was atop the tower on Thursday (8/10) to capture some photos of the final major concrete pour - and a ceremonies photo with the "bucket'"
According to McHugh Concrete's LinkedIn post, the structural height is 788'

Here are a couple shots. Hope to have more to share soon...

[sentinel]

^^Great photos, Nick!!

Originally Posted by vexxed82

I was atop the tower on Thursday (8/10) to capture some photos of the final major concrete pour - and a ceremonies photo with the "bucket'"
According to McHugh Concrete's LinkedIn post, the structural height is 788'....

Honestly, that still kinda tracks, here's a section diagram from ChicagoYimby, from a 2021 article before construction began:



I suspect the amenity level at the top was shortened a bit..but structural height and architectural height are not always the same, so I wonder if the building can still hit 800' at the top of the mechanical penthouse

[Zapatan]

so I wonder if the building can still hit 800' at the top of the mechanical penthouse

It wouldn't surprise me if 788' were the final, though it's barely a difference and a it's a prominent (and nice looking) skyscraper in its immediate area.

The CTBUH generally ranks skyscraper cities by number of buildings of a certain height in meters and this one still well clears the 200m mark (656 feet), even by last occupied floor.

[Ricochet48]

Great photos Nick!

1000M really turned out better than I expected tbh. It stands out so much from my favorite biking destination (Alder).

[pianowizard]

If it is confirmed to be 788', then Chicago's long streak of >800' constructions ended earlier this year with the completion of the Salesforce Tower. But if it is actually 805', and the 875' 400 LSD starts to rise before 1000M is finished, then the streak will continue for several more years.

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by Ricochet48

Great photos Nick!

1000M really turned out better than I expected tbh. It stands out so much from my favorite biking destination (Alder).

Thanks so much!

_____________

Originally Posted by pianowizard

If it is confirmed to be 788', then Chicago's long streak of >800' constructions ended earlier this year with the completion of the Salesforce Tower. But if it is actually 805', and the 875' 400 LSD starts to rise before 1000M is finished, then the streak will continue for several more years.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It wouldn't surprise me if 788' were the final, though it's barely a difference and a it's a prominent (and nice looking) skyscraper in its immediate area.

The CTBUH generally ranks skyscraper cities by number of buildings of a certain height in meters and this one still well clears the 200m mark (656 feet), even by last occupied floor.

I'll see if I can get some more exacting information from my contacts.

[Steely Dan]

If I were a betting man, I'd place my money on 805' being the structural height, and 788' being the zoning height.

In the Chicago zoning code, the "height" of a building is measured to the underside of the structure over the highest occupied floor.

Don't ask me why it's calculated this way, it just is. And always has been.

And it has led to all kinds of confusion and misreporting of skyscraper heights over the decades.

[r18tdi]

I've seen the developers and the architect consistently quote 805, so unless they are putting out old info (which is possible), I would agree with Steely that the 788 figure is the structural height, which doesn't include the mechanicals and parapet.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

I've seen the developers and the architect consistently quote 805, so unless they are putting out old info (which is possible), I would agree with Steely that the 788 figure is the structural height, which doesn't include the mechanicals and parapet.

Which still aligns with my belief that 788' figure is the top of highest structural slab, seen in Nick's picture:



...and is where the previously shown 791' height that was in the section diagram from ChicagoYimby is located.

a 12' or taller mechanical and elevator penthouse is certainly possible, so I feel confident that the architectural top of this building is still 800'+

[sentinel]

If this breaks past 800', it will be nice to think that there are at least 3 new residential towers built around Grant Park in the past 10 years that have broken that height threshold:

- Legacy, 832'(?)
- NEMA, 893', 906' arch height
- 1000 S. Michigan, 800'+

[SnowFire]

should put a sneaky spire on it.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

If I were a betting man, I'd place my money on 805' being the structural height, and 788' being the zoning height.

Yea, the parapet may still reach 805'

If I'm not mistaken, a long ways back I think I remember reading something about 788' being the solid roof under the parapet.

Makes sense...

[Steely Dan]

I moved all of the off topic posts to the general thread:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=208431

[Klippenstein]

Delete

[Rooted Arborial]

Originally Posted by kolchak

?????

Has there been anything proposed for that 2 story wall at the bottom of the diagonal on the south face of the base - other than what it is now?

It seems weirdly out of place - so weird that I'd just as soon see them paint it bright pink or yellow or ..... - just to make it an even weirder feature!

I'm so impressed by the rest of the building that the white wall is like an Achilles heel to me (even though it looks more brutal than vulnerable).

[SnowFire]

Maybe the local art college can do something there. Its probably a fire requirement or something.

[Ned.B]

Maybe invite Colin van der Sluijs back to paint another mural.

But yes as to why it's there, where two adjoining buildings meet like this with one rising above the other, the taller one must be fire rated for a certain distance above the roof of of the other. Typically none of the windows on the south side of 1000 could have existed, or would have needed to be expensive fire rated glass were it not for the air rights above the historic building. The Hilton Garden Inn on Water Street is a good example of that.

[Rooted Arborial]

^^^^^

Could a "mosaic" pattern of large stone tiles be approved of as safe on that section of 1000M?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

^^^^^

Could a "mosaic" pattern of large stone tiles be approved of as safe on that section of 1000M?

Sure, any wall finish is fine as long it has a minimal flame spread. Stone or ceramic tiles would be OK.

The problem comes down to maintenance, 1000M doesn't want to pay for or maintain a premium wall finish in that area where it mainly benefits the neighboring rooftop deck. If it were up to me, I would just find a light gray paint / Modac coating that complements the stainless steel spandrels instead of a stark white.

[Rooted Arborial]

^^^^^

Light grey paint make sense to me, but this is a Helmut Jahn building and I would like some of his playful(?) color choices from the past to be updated/referenced.

I wasn't a fan of some of his past choices in colors, but I would like something which could be seen as being like his signature and as an (lighthearted) homage.